DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on November 24, 2025. Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, 16, and 19 been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 9, 13, 16, and 19 filed on November 24, 2025. The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 16, and 19 have addressed some of the objections previously submitted, however some remain in place. Please see clarification in the action below.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 16 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Bermier et al. (US Patent No. 4738027).
The applicant’s amendments to claim 13 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Bermier et al. (US Patent No. 4738027).
As such, see the new rejection applying Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in place of Bermier.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections: Applicants’ amendments have addressed some of the claim objections. The ones remaining have been included in the action with further clarification regarding the limitations objected.
Claim Rejections: Applicants’ remarks, presenting the rejections as no longer maintainable in light of the amendments have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Bermier fails to anticipate or make obvious the limitations as amended, and the teaching references Eisele and Liversiidge fail to address the inequities of Bermier. Please see the new rejections set forth within the action, applying Lawler.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 16: Initial recitations of limitations should be preceded by “a/an” and subsequent recitations preceded by either “said” or “the”. Regarding claims 1 and 16, the subsequent recitations of “sheathing” should be preceded by “the”. Similar adjustments should be made regarding reciting the “electrical cable”.
Claim 19: The claim reads in part: “…adjacent to a first end of the first set…”. For clarity of intended claim scope, it is believed the claim intends to refer to “the first set of parallel facing cutting edges”. The claim will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235).
In regards to claim 1, Lawler discloses
a device (sheathing stripper and sheathing cutter tool 10, fig. 1-21) for removing a sheathing from an electrical cable, the device comprising:
a body (at least outer tube 12, sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, and cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-21) having a first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) opposite the first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) therebetween, and
a passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending through the longitudinal portion from the first end to the second end;
the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) defining a first terminal portion of a channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending along at least a portion of the longitudinal portion of the body, the channel extending adjacent to the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) disposed within the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1), the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) configured to cut a sheathing of an electrical cable extending through the passage (see fig. 19) upon the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) being moved in a first direction relative to the electrical cable (fig. 20); and
PNG
media_image1.png
309
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed at an angle (perpendicular, see fig. 1) to the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) at a second terminal portion of the channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) opposite the first terminal portion,
the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed outside of the passage (see fig. 13 and 16; col. 5 lines 23-39),
col. 5 lines 23-29: Referring to FIGS. 13-16, the sheathing cutter-blade retention tube 18 includes a truncated end 18a. The truncated end 18a includes an opening 18b on the top side of the tube 18. Recesses 18d are provided on either side of the opening 18b within the cutter-blade retention tube 18. The recesses are sized to receive the sheathing cutter-blade 20 ends 20b and the cutter-blade is retained between the cutter-blade retention tube 18 and the outer tube 12.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) configured to cut a sheathing from an electrical cable upon the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) being moved in a second direction opposite the first direction with the sheathing extending from the passage and into the channel (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
435
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note:
As Lawler is a hand tool, a user would be able to pull the tool in a multitude of directions (parallel, perpendicular, acute, obtuse) relative to each other in order to be in a comfortable position to strip and/or cut the sheathing of a wire assembly. A skilled artisan would recognize Lawler would be fully capable of being pulled in a direction opposite a first in order to cut a sheathing from a wire assembly, as it provides the structure necessary to accommodate the method step.
In regards to claim 2, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) has an arcuate profile (see fig. 1-5, 19-21).
In regards to claim 3, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) is linear (see fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 4, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the angle is orthogonal (perpendicular/90 degrees is an orthogonal angle, see fig. 1-2).
In regards to claim 5, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, further comprising an impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) disposed in the channel proximate to the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 6, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 5, wherein the impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) is radially offset from the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 7, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 5, wherein the impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16) is configured to restrain (by being part of the device structure) a material for cutting by the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21).
In regards to claim 8, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the first terminal portion of the channel and the second terminal portion of the channel have a same centerline (see fig. 2 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
164
786
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the channel bends at an angle such that the first terminal portion of the channel is angularly offset from the second terminal portion of the channel by a predetermined amount (see fig. 16 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
266
870
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) defines a longitudinal axis and the first and second directions are parallel to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 1/2 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
550
1478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (Patent No. 6247235).
In regards to claim 13, Lawler discloses
a method for removing a sheath from a sheathed wire cable, the method comprising: inserting the sheathed wire cable through an aperture of a device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12); moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in a first direction, wherein a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) slits a portion of the sheath along a longitudinal length of the sheath as the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in the first direction (fig. 19);
PNG
media_image1.png
309
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pulling the portion of the sheath away from a remainder of the sheathed wire cable;
and moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in a second direction opposite the first direction, wherein a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) of the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) cuts the portion of the sheath so as to detach the portion of the sheath from the remainder of the sheathed wire cable wire (fig. 21).
PNG
media_image3.png
435
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As Lawler is a hand tool, a user would be able to pull the tool in a multitude of directions (parallel, perpendicular, acute, obtuse) relative to each other in order to be in a comfortable position to strip and/or cut the sheathing of a wire assembly. A skilled artisan would recognize Lawler would be fully capable of being pulled in a direction opposite a first in order to cut a sheathing from a wire assembly, as it provides the structure necessary to accommodate the method step.
In regards to claim 14, Lawler discloses
the method of claim 13, wherein prior to moving the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) in the second direction the method further comprises: engaging the portion with an impingement (edges of recesses 18d, fig. 1, 13, 15 and 16; while moving the wire sheathing, it would come into contact with the sides of tool channel, including the impingements).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler in view of Eisele et al. (US PG Pub No. 20230010340).
In regards to claim 10, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose the body further comprises “a magnet.”
Eisele et al discloses a cable-shaving tool, which includes a magnet:
[0013]:… The cable-shaving tool may further include a first magnet secured in the first housing shell and a second magnet secured in the second housing shell wherein the first contacts the second magnet when the lid is in the closed position, holding the cable-shaving tool in the closed position when moving the cable-shaving tool along the length of the cable.
[0056] In one embodiment shown in the exploded view of FIG. 16 and the housing lid interior surface in FIGS. 14 and 15, the shaving tool 10 includes at least one first magnet 50 disposed in a magnet recess 54 of the housing bottom 30 and at least one second magnet 52 disposed in a magnet recess 56 of the housing lid 20. The at least one first and second magnet are positioned adjacent one another when the lid 20 is in the closed position, providing secure closure of the tool.
Lawler and Eisele are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires stripping apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lawler and provided the magnets of Eisele in the casing/frame halves in order to facilitate secure closure of the tool while in use (Eisele [0056]).
Claims 11 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 608915).
In regards to claim 11, Lawler discloses
the device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising “a wire stripping assembly disposed at” the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) of the body, the “wire stripping assembly comprising a first set of parallel facing cutting edges; and
a second set of parallel facing cutting edges offset from the first set, wherein the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is parallel to the first set.”
Cheng discloses a wirestripper with two ends, with first cutting edge (cutter blade 115) and second cutting edge (cutting edge 151 of cutter blade 15).
PNG
media_image7.png
686
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cheng also discloses an additional wire stripping assembly (at least clamping plates 14 with serrated portions 142 on working side wall 141) with a first and second set of parallel facing cutting edges (serrated portions 142, see fig. 1 – ann. 1) which are parallel relative to each other.
PNG
media_image8.png
686
1184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cheng and Lawler are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, wire strippers with multiple blades/cutting edges distributed between ends of the tool.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lawler in view of Cheng, and add an additional wire stripping assembly including first and second sets of parallel facing cutting edges to second end of the tool, increasing the tools operational compacity and versatility, as the clamping plates and elements that form the stripping assembly help protect the wire from damage during tool operation (Cheng col. 2 lines 45-52).
In regards to claim 16, Lawler discloses
a device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) comprising:
a body (at least outer tube 12, sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, and cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-21) having a first end (sheathing slitter blade retention tube 14, fig. 1-5, 19-10, 19-21),
a second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) opposite the first end, and
a passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) extending through a longitudinal portion (outer tube 12, fig. 1-21) from the first end to the second end;
the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) defining a first terminal portion of a channel extending along at least a longitudinal portion of the body, the channel extending adjacent to the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) disposed within the passage (see fig. 1/2 - ann. 1), the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) configured to cut a sheathing of an electrical cable extending through the passage when the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in a first direction relative to the electrical cable;
a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed at an angle to the first cutting edge (sheathing slitter-blade 16, fig. 1-5, 19-21) at a second terminal portion of the channel opposite the first terminal portion, the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) disposed outside of the passage, the second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) configured to cut a sheathing from an electrical cable when the device (stripping tool, fig. 1-12) is moved in a second direction opposite the first direction with the sheathing extending from the passage and into the channel.
Lawler fails to explicitly disclose further comprising “a wire stripping assembly disposed at” the second end (cutter blade retention tube 18, fig. 1-4, 13-16, and 21) of the body, the “wire stripping assembly comprising a first set of parallel facing cutting edges; and
a second set of parallel facing cutting edges offset from the first set, wherein the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is parallel to the first set.”
Cheng discloses a wirestripper with two ends, with first cutting edge (cutter blade 115) and second cutting edge (cutting edge 151 of cutter blade 15).
PNG
media_image7.png
686
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cheng also discloses an additional wire stripping assembly (at least clamping plates 14 with serrated portions 142 on working side wall 141) with a first and second set of parallel facing cutting edges (serrated portions 142, see fig. 1 – ann. 1) which are parallel relative to each other.
PNG
media_image9.png
686
1184
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Cheng and Lawler are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, wire strippers with multiple blades/cutting edges distributed between ends of the tool.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lawler in view of Cheng, and add an additional wire stripping assembly including first and second sets of parallel facing cutting edges to second end of the tool, increasing the tools operational compacity and versatility, as the clamping plates and elements that form the stripping assembly help protect the wire from damage during tool operation (Cheng col. 2 lines 45-52).
In regards to claim 17, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the first set and second set of parallel facing cutting edges share a centerline (see fig. 1 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image10.png
686
1141
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the first set of parallel facing cutting edges is spaced by a first distance and the second set of parallel facing cutting edges is spaced by a second distance less than the first distance (as the sets are biased by springs 143, it’s possible that an object could push one set of edges apart against the spring, causing the spacing to be greater than the other set).
In regards to claim 19, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein the wire stripping assembly further comprises an opening adjacent to a first end of the first set of parallel facing cutting edges to allow insertion of an insulated wire therebetween (the spacing between the serrated portions 142 constitutes an “opening” that allows the insertion of an insulated wire therebetween; see fig. 1 of Cheng).
In regards to claim 20, Lawler as modified discloses
the device of claim 16, wherein a first cutting edge (first serrated portion 142) from the first set of parallel facing cutting edges and a first cutting edge (second serrated portion 142) from the second set of parallel facing cutting edges are defined by a first component (clamping plates 14 fit into chamber 113), and a second cutting edge (sheathing cutter blade 20, fig. 1-4, 12, 21) from the first set and a second cutting piece from the second set are defined by a second component (clamping plates fit into chamber 123) fixed relative to the first component (they are opposite each other in the tool; see fig. 1).
Claims 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawler (US Patent No. 6247235) in view of Liversidge (US PG Pub No. 20180226776).
In regards to claim 15, Lawler as modified discloses
the method of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose prior to moving the device in the second direction the method further comprises: rotating the device 90 degrees in a radial direction.
Liversidge, which discloses a cable stripping tool, teachings rotating a tool:
[0031] The facets of the cutting end of the blade 28 lie at an angle to the axis of the respective channel 22, 23 so that on pushing the cable end into the opening 24, 25 and rotating the tool 10 around the cable 2, the blade 28 performs a helical cutting action, in effect threading itself along the cable 2 while partly cutting and partly shearing a strip 30 of the adjacent layer of the cable 2.
Lawler and Liversidge are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires stripping apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the wire stripping method of Liversedge to Lawler, and rotated the tool during the stripping process, either to create a helical cutting action (Liversidge [0031]), or adjust the positioning of the device for easier use by the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723